Mr Abiodunrin Odumosu v Total Security Services Limited — 2020

The claimant, Mr Abiodunrin Odumosu, was employed by Total Security Services Limited as a Retail Security Officer from 30 June 2017 until he resigned on 10 September 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent was contractually required to offer him 5 hours of work per week, or 20 hours over a 4-week period. After 14 June 2019, when the claimant did not attend a shift because of travel delays and returned home, the respondent did not roster him for further work, transferred his rota to another employee, and made no further contact attempts after unanswered calls on 18 June 2019 until 10 September 2019.

The tribunal found that the failure to offer work was a breach of a fundamental term of the contract. It rejected the argument that the claimant had affirmed the contract before resigning, because the breach was continuing and was repeated each week or 4-week period in which no work was provided. It also found that the claimant resigned in response to the respondent's breach; the new job he had found affected the timing of his resignation but was not the reason for it. Because the respondent advanced no potentially fair reason for dismissal, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed and also wrongfully dismissed.

For remedy, the tribunal treated 10 September 2019 as the effective date of termination and found that the claimant was 55 with 2 years' qualifying service. It calculated gross weekly pay at £347.79 by averaging the last 12 paycheques, producing a basic award of £1,043.37. It awarded no loss of earnings because the claimant began new employment on the same date as his resignation and did not show lower earnings in the new job. A compensatory award of £300 was made for loss of statutory protection and right to long notice, with no Polkey reduction and no adjustment for the ACAS Code, conduct, or contributory fault. The total unfair dismissal award was £1,343.37, and no separate award was made for wrongful dismissal.

The unauthorised deductions from wages claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that deductions for student loan repayments, the DWP, and the London Borough of Lewisham were required deductions and were excepted under section 14(3) ERA 1996. The claimant clarified that he did not claim in respect of deductions to repay a wage advance. The SIA licence deductions had been authorised in writing before they were made and had in any event been refunded, so the tribunal found there were no unauthorised deductions from wages.